Breaking the Waves, God, Lars Von Trier

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Watched this for the second time last night. Less devastating/cathartic, more ... curious. How are we to take all this? Is he mocking us for feeling things? Is he asking us to think about how and why melodrama affects us? Or is he just telling a straightforward story?

And then there's the whole religious angle. Is he really a believer (he supposedly converted to Catholicism in '95, the year before the film was released), or is it all some kind of perverse game? What does the movie mean if we don't belive in God, or if Lars himself doesn't believe?

The last shot doesn't exactly raise these questions, but it does make them kinda hard to ignore.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, and Emily Watson wuz robbed. This and Taxi Driver are the only times I've ever been incensed by the "injustice" of the Academy.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

THE PERVERSE GAME ANGLE DEF FIGURES IN THERE SOMEWHERE

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Monday, 15 January 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

Kinda seems like it, but how? For me, at least, the movie simply works as a melodrama. Watching it for the first time, I was aware that I was being emotionally manipulated, I could even see how strings were pulled, step by step, but I still cried my eyes out at the end.

And that seemed like Lars' intent. He wanted you to notice that he was fucking with your head/heart, and he wanted his film to acheive its emotional effects in spite your noticing. The smug sadism repulses me, though I can't help but admire the results.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

try to compare the movie (and other late movies by Von Trier) to the faith sories written by Flannery O'coonor.
theres similiarity in the religious "message" - something bad must happen to the characters in order to open the viewer eyes to the truth of faith.
as in real life,where the unbeliever must experience a shocking,maybe voilent event in order for this truth to reveil.
thats what o'connor believed in and thats what von trier is trying to achieve here.

and all this manipulation thing is not an importend issue i think.
in a way,every art is a manipulation on the consumer,the only thing that is matter is the result and if it works well.

― emekars (emekars), Monday, 15 January 2007 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

Haven't read Flannery O'Connor in years. But I enjoyed her writing in my callow youth, so I wouldn't be averse to giving it another go.

I'm not so sure about the seriousness of Trier's intent, as regards the film's "spiritual" message. Why decorate the characters' home with kitschy kitten pictures? Why all the cheesy (yet maddeningly effective) Elton John on the soundtrack? Why that rub-it-in-your-face ghastly final shot?

One one level, I think Trier is probably doing exactly what you say. But I'm not sure that's the only level in play here...

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Monday, 15 January 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

It's been over ten years since I saw the film, but I remember that final shot totally ruined it for me, as a non-believer. I have nothing against religious movies in principle, as long as they don't, as you put it, rub it in your face.

After having seen Dancer in the Dark I realized von Trier's specialty was emotionally sadistic movies with suffering heroines and supposedly uplifting endings. Dancer in the Dark was even worse in that it followed the Medieval Christian idea of "suffer in this world and you'll be rewarded after death". At least Idiots, as messy as it was, didn't offer such easy solutions. Any way, these three films made me realize von Trier's moralities are so opposed to mine that I don't want to see any of his films again, as talented as he is.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

one of the first contemporary european 'art movies' i've seen.

bag o'shite.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

Is he really a believer (he supposedly converted to Catholicism in '95, the year before the film was released), or is it all some kind of perverse game?

Why would a Catholic make a film about a load of comedy Protestants? Except perhaps to mock them? Mmmm.

― The Real Dirty Vicar (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:18 (nineteen years ago)

Also, note that in both BtW and DitD it is the suffering that is rewarded rather than any sort of constructive action. I think Nietzsche would've had a great time ripping von Trier's Christian moralities apart.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think nietzsche (or anyone) shoudl take lvt very seriously as a theologian. he just likes getting a rise out of people.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

I should watch Lars' little speeches at the end of each episode of The Kingdom before I went down the God-botherer line.

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:35 (nineteen years ago)

I was disappointed when I got The Kingdom on video and most of those were cut - it was on two tapes, and they only kept the one at the end of each tape.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

I need to see Season 2 one day :(

― God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

Me too! I've never seen it either.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...

I just got both seasons of the Kingdom on dvd from Madman Cinema (who are fucking useless arseholes, but that's a whole other story).

It's so great. And I love Lars' little speeches at the end of each episode!

― skr0nk, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.